Travis County Commssioners Court
November 25, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 19
Now let's call up item number 19. And that is to receive briefing from consultant and work group on phase 1 landfill odor study.
>> morning, Commissioners, judge. I'm with tnr. The purpose of today's item is to essentially bring what is the first phase of potentially, I guess, a three-phase odor study that has been conducted, begun to be conducted at the northeast landfill of 290 and Travis County. I think what i'll do is very quickly note that i'll move quickly to bart ek land with, who is our consultant to give us an overview of the results. We did give to him notice to proceed in, I believe, early June and got a draft report September 30th. What you have here today is in your backup you've got an executive summary, a list of comments and responses and you have been provided with a draft report back in early October. So I think the best use of the time would be to let clark lay out what's been done and give you guys a question and answer period.
>> okay.
>> good morning. The first phase involved collecting all the available information, looking through that information, developing recommendations for subsequent phases. It's important to keep in mind that we didn't generate any new data during this first phase. It was a matter of taking the files from the landfill operators, from the state, from the county and going through that information to see what's there primarily. And there's a tremendous amount of existing information for all these landfills. So we had two reports. The first one summarizes all of the existing information, what do we know about the landfills, what do we know about the odors there. And then the second report gets into the recommendations for monitoring and for an engineering evaluation. And as john pointed out, we submitted a draft report. We have a work group that involves representatives from each of the landfills, the neighborhoods surrounding the landfills. They've had a chance to comment. Primarily their comments related to the historical information. We really didn't get a lot of comments on the recommendations for going forward. And as you probably know, since the project started a lawsuit was filed which tended to I think make everyone a little reticent on communitying and passing along -- communicating and passing along information. I felt I got all the information I needed. There were a couple of small things that we originally scheduled that were postponed or cancelled. One was a community meeting to give people who live near the landfills a chance to express their concerns or their experiences. The neighborhood representatives on the work group decided not to go forward with that meeting. I think -- I'm not sure of their exact reasons. That didn't change the study any because the tceq already had a very large database of complaints, and john kuhl with the county also had very good documentation on historic odor complaints. So I felt like I had all the information I needed to determine the past history of odors and where they've been encountered and the types of odors and so on. And then originally we had scheduled to do a little bit of snooping with a portable analyzer during the site visits to the landfills, and I think because of the lawsuit both landfills thought it would be better not to have that data generated, although both landfills allowed us to come on site, do an inspection, go through their records and they were both forthcoming with the dowlttation that I needed to do the first phase of the study. Again, we have one document that just summarizes what's known about the landfills and the odors there. The second document sets forth a monitoring study primarily to look at hydrogen sulfide upwind and downwind of the landfills. It's the kind of -- if tceq came in and designed a study, I think they would do the same thing, look at continuous monitoring of that owed russ compound -- odor rouse compound upwind and downwind of the landfills for an extended period of time to see if they're in compliance with the state regulations. And that's the short summary.
>> john, one of the things in the backup that we've got has to do with the consultant recommending monitoring, mentions the cost. Also saying it's anticipated Travis County bear these costs. If this has been ordered by tceq as a part of any remedial orders that has been happening related to those two particular things, that it becomes part of a tceq record that makes that happen as opposed to we get into some kind of discussion, encouragement related to who will bear the cost of this. I mean, if you've got the weight of the tceq behind you, something that's recommended can become better.
>> i'll try to respond to that. When we were initially having these discussions back in early spring and summer, there was a draft agreed order that was out at the time for bfi, and it appeared as though part of the technical recommendations that there would be monitoring required. It appears that that's been negotiated away. And I don't know necessarily that bfi even took the lead in that. I'm not saying that. I think actually it was a combined effort between waste management and bfi to make some factual presentations and arguments that I think resolved around whether or not the site was considered. Help me with the terminology here, a major source or something along those lines. This is all secondhand information. I don't know exactly what's happened there, but I do come away from it all with the conclusion that there is no monitoring requirement for the landfills as a result of the agreed order.
>> and my last question. And in terms of the dollars that were generated by those two settlements, what was the combined amount that would be coming Travis County's way related to the fines?
>> you've caught me a little off guard. I don't remember the exact total. It seems as though it was --
>> it was about $120,000, wasn't it?
>> 120, 140. And approximately 100 of that was supposed to be spent on the creek and debris cleanup and so forth and about 40 was going to be spent on existing, known illegal dump sites and signage.
>> so even if we wanted to say put that into this, we couldn't. Thank you.
>> I mean, that's not final. That hasn't actually gone through the commission and been voted on, so -- presumably there might be a little room in there.
>> in an effort to resolve this problem as far as the east side landfills, you as you know, we've been involved in a regional summit to look at solutions to address the concerns that the community has raised about the landfills and others. My question is looking in the -- looking down the road for removal and relocation of the 290 east landfills, even though we have been embarking upon an odor study, has there been any attempt made with the participants, especially the operators, landfill operators of the 290 east landfills, has there been any attempt to introduce them to continue efforts maybe -- continue a possibility of monitoring, but remediation of those particular landfills, but also looking down the road at closure, has that been placed on the table at any such meeting?
>> we have had conversations along those lines. I think as far back as when we were discussing the potential operating agreements and things like that and shortly thereafter. I think there may be -- there may be some openings for negotiation there, but I think clearly the corporations out there have a stated -- have stated a very clear plan to seek expansion, unless something dramatic happens.
>> well, I know during the summit itself, the regional summit that was held last Friday, the question was posed -- in fact, I posed the question about them looking for a location. And of course, they did say they're looking, that is, the landfill operators. Of course, it's my intention to make sure they find what they're looking for, and that is to relocate off of 290. Now, I guess my point, though, within the odor study itself, the contribution that -- monetary contributions to ensure that what they're doing out there presentty is captured in the sense of correcting the odor problems out there, has there been any discussion from them recently that would suggest that they are willing to also deal with that problem?
>> is the question whether there would be willing to financially cooperate?
>> exactly.
>> my indications are that bfi is willing to discuss that and appears motivated to do so. And I just cannot speak to waste management. I haven't had that conversation. They haven't gone out of their way to tell me that they are or they are not. But bfi seems actually in favor of doing this.
>> and I guess finally, in that the life capacity of those particular landfills are within a range of maybe even looking for a drain field, a new site, another location doing -- seeking an msw permit through tceq, it appears that the -- it's been my intention that the lifetime capacity of them operating apparently is something that's is something ha we need to pursue. But I'm still trying to tie this into the odor study itself whereby whatever that lifetime capacity is of the existing 290 landfill, it can be captured and addressed to the existing community out there now. I'm still leaning toward that relief factor of the financial contributions. The immediate yant si of this. And finally, when will this study be basically done to the point where they will have an opportunity to say they will or they will not participate financially.
>> well, I think if --
>> I would suggest that anyway.
>> I think in general terms if the report is accepted today, one of the things that if there's an inclination to explore that from the court, that could be another directive to staff is to just really kind of find out are you willing to financially participate? And if so, when can we get the thing kicked off. And that doesn't have to be a conversation that's made in terms of a commitment because obviously we've probably come back and you guys would decide whether or not that was something you wanted to do and take action on it. But that's something that we can try to tie up. What we wanted to do today was find out if in general terms after you read the documents and the comments and the responses to the comments that you felt all the bases had been covered and we should move forward or not in that direction.
>> I think post it for next week for the action.
>> I was afraid to go down this road. I asked for further studies and further studies to spend money and now we're looking at $240,000. Either I am missing something, john, or something is so clear that where we have -- we have odors, whether they're coming out of the gas or whether they're coming -- I think they're coming out of the working phase. I mean, the word is putrid, smemz. Nobody has to spend $240,000. I wouldn't expect waste management or bfi to bell lip up to the bar for $240,000 to do a study to say does it smell? Drive down the blue goose road. I mean, it smells. I just don't get it. I mean, what are we going through these she nan begans for? I'd like to get the two operators up here and ask them point-blank, are you willing to spend to participate and $240,000 to tell us whether or not it smells out there? I mean, why do we -- we kind of beat around the bush with this. I mean, I just -- I'm missing something here. I know we have one operator here. Is someone prepared -- steve, are y'all prepared to come up here and say whether or not you're interested in participating in a 2,000-dollar odor study? -- 240,000-dollar odor study?
>> strictly speaking, again, the question is not so much as whether the landfill smells or not because it's common sense that landfills smell. And in Texas, though, it's not illegal to have a business that emits odors. The regulations preclude odors above a certain level. So the question is not whether there's odors or not, it's whether the odors are objectionable and above the state level. And generally the state would want to see two to four quarters of data, six to 12 months of -- to determine whether or not a given source or a given industry was in compliance or not. So they recognize that some days they are and some days they potentially could not be. That you can't go out one day and determine whether they're in compliance or not. But the state sets a level of hydrogen sulfide of about 80 parts per billion, which some people might find objectionable, some wouldn't. But it's -- it's well above where you can start to smell something. So the state tries to set a level, I believe, that's restrictive enough that keeps neighbors from having too many complaints, but the no so restrictive that it shuts down city-owned wastewater treatment plants, landfills, the other kind of industries that emit these kind of odor compound.
>> you believe that hydrogen sulfide is the biggest problem?
>> right. The -- there's several hundred complaints that have been filed by the neighbors. And generally they describe a sulphur type smell, natural gas or a putrid -- I'm sorry, a sulphur type compounds, hydrogen sul fiedz specifically present in landfill gas, and tceq measured up to 82 parts per billion hydrogen sulfide, which is about 10 times where you would start to smell it. And they also look for other sulphur compounds that have very objectionable odors, and they did not find those compounds present.
>> if you're assuming that hydrogen sulfide is the biggest problem, why wouldn't it make more sense to take money and try to work on dreeing that?
>> rather than monitoring further and investing money into a fix.
>> if you look, the applied materials representative did suggest that. To some extent I think the problem was fixed a year ago. If you look at at least the number of odor complaints, they're down probably 90% or so from a year ago. It's possible people have quit complaining because they don't see value in making additional complaints, but everyone seems in agreement that the problem is better now than it was a year ago. There's some scepticism among the neighbors, I think, as to whether or not it will continue to be at the current level or if it might go back to where it was in 2002. But one of the things in the report is to document the steps the landfills have taken and they've done a number of things to address odors, and I think if they had additional things, tricks they could pull out of their bag, they would certainly have implemented them by now. They're making a good faith effort to try to address those, I believe.
>>
>> [one moment for change in captioners.]
>>
>> ... Even in the old aspect of what we're doing. My question to you, would you participate in the process of relocating from 290 east landfill. And I think that's a very legitimate question because this is the direction that I think we are trying to go in fourth as far as a regional approach, looking at landfills that can be in a regional setting where it would not be intrusive and other things as far as municipal solid waste. I'm going to question you would you be willing to participate in that search to relocate at the 290 east landfill.
>> to be honest with you, Commissioner, I came here, I thought the agenda item was the odor study.
>>
>> [one moment please].
>>
>> rather than spending more money monitoring, the money is better spent on trying to --
>> yes. And I will leave a written explanation of that with you, and I have copies for you guys.
>> thank you, steve.
>> thank you.
>> any questions? Anybody else to give comments? If so, please come forward. Comments on the order setting.
>> judge, I would like to add the b.f.i. Representatives are here if there are questions of that industry.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> judge, I just need to -- the contract stated that we would have this report in 90 days and it stated that because of this lawsuit. I just need the court to make a motion to allow us to go ahead and pay them.
>> what are we talking about here?
>> the contract was for 90 days to have the study and because of some of the delays it's extended that 90 days and soy need the court to approve payment.
>> I don't know that we're posted to do that.
>> no, I don't think so.
>> but I don't hear any objection. How's that?
>> thank you.
>> [indiscernible] contract mod just so we can extend.
>> good morning.
>> good morning. My name is trek english.
>> good morning, trek.
>> it's very difficult for me to comment on this preliminary study because we've already gone through two major studies with other consultants, and I can probably predict exactly what's going to happen. So in this case I'm confused because, as Commissioner Daugherty says, we know it smells and we were supposed to investigate whether there were owed ores or not. The answer is yes, there are odors. And the first phase was supposed to be done on information that was being obtained by the various parties, and it seems to me that the party that should have submitted the most documents was the agency. However, in our experience, we have not been able to get the documents from -- certain documents from the tceq because half of the records are in the enforcement section. So you can't get ahold of anything that has to do with gas exceedences or anything that has to do with problems that they've incurred with their odors. And so I find it strange that we're talking about basing a study on the information in the files and we cannot obtain information in the file.
>> from tceq.
>> from tceq. Because all of it is tied up in enforcement and the attorney general has an opinion and it's not been done with just one of us, it's two of us. So there's no way of us being able to get the right documentation. So that's the first problem I have. The second problem I have is, from what I understand, this is being a compliance study. I thought this was the job of tceq for doing a h 2 s compliance. I can smell h 2 s. I can smell it. And if we're going to establish that they were within that .8 -- .08 parts per million, so does that mean we don't have odors? To me, there's states in there -- I mean, i've got pages and pages of notes. There is a statement there that says that there are other gases that are evident in the -- in the -- I guess they are based on the reading of the records, such as mocs and vocs, but yet we are not testing for those, we are not going to study those. So if we're not going to test for those, I'm much more concerned about benzene, because by the time I smell benzene, it's at a toxic level. Well, h 2 h you can smell when it's -- it may not be harmful if you are not exposed to it for long periods of time. So I think there are a lot more things research here and a lot more things to study besides just h 2 s. I was just reading the first draft and I wish we didn't have to read the red line draft. To know what are changes. If the changes are minimal, would it be possible for us to obtain that or you think there are a lot of changes?
>> I didn't create the red line version at the time so -- the best thing to do would be to look at that summary of all the comments and the responses and that will point you to what changes are there and where they are located.
>> well, then, if we go by the summary of the comments and the responses, seems to me that b.f.i. Is asking for a lot of concessions. I mean, it's -- they are basically dictating what should be done, what should not be done, and in all fairness to mr. Eckland, he did address some of those comments and said that he did trust that his -- that the suggested changes are not reasonable, that he would not change his position. But most of the requests were -- are being addressed and revised. So I have a problem with some of the ones that they are asking. Also, in the response to my comment, when I asked about the industrial waste unit, there's just too many answers. I asked steve jacobs about this issue and he's not aware, he's not aware. Well, mr. Jacobs, I'm not saying he's lying, I'm just saying he may not be aware of them. Mr. Jacobs is the 10th manager in the last five years. So we've gone through the revolving door that's so many people that I doubt anyone that can run the waste management landfill knows anything about that site. In depth, anyway. I had to provide the statement with papers that the waste management owns the landfill in 1981 because they themselves didn't know that. "they" meaning the company. And I am also very concerned about the fact that there's very little about the industrial unit in that initial study, and that needs to be looked at very seriously because the -- the investigation of the industrial units did report that they were exposed area of the landfills. And this landfill did not get capped until this year. So for five years now when the stockpiles were removed, they were exposures -- exposure of industrial waste and municipal waste at the surface. And if mr. Jacobs is not aware of it, then he needs to go back and look at their own consultant's report and the boring logs that substantiate that statement. The seeps are -- I made a mistake, I put 2002, but there were recorded seeps in 2001. And this was very crucial because at the same time that the monitoring of the industrial unit was being argued with the city and that we were saying that we felt that they were -- there were migration of the contamination that they had found, they were saying no, no, no, we knew exactly what's going on and there's only contamination in this spot. Well, the seeps show there's not just contamination in that one spot in the creek bed, there was contamination all along and out of the creek bed. While this would impact ground water monitoring and not air quality monitoring, it still is a reflection that they are not being genuine about the information that they are putting forward at very many phases of all these investigations. I would like to leave some comments for joyce best and joy swanson and then I may have another comment, but I will also address the court next week if you want me to. Thank you.
>> good morning.
>> my name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. And from the community standpoint, I wanted to make sure that the Commissioners understand that we are still very concerned about odors speaking personally as recently as last Wednesday evening there was very objectional odor in my front yard, which is more than a mile away from the landfill. And there have been other complaints, but I chuckled to myself yesterday as I was reading through some documentation from early on, 18 months ago, the tceq or tnrcc, as it was then known, asked us, after we had submitted 100 complaints, to quit submitting complaints. They had enough to get this problem taken care of. Of course, now they have probably a thousand, and yes, there are people who are less annoying than I am who have quit complaining, but I have not and some others of us have not. And it is true that some of the steps taken have improved the situation. My concern is that one of the steps that was taken is the diversion of extremely odorous waste which may not be a temporary solution, and I fear that once it's all said and done and this is all settled, some of that waste may be coming back to the northeast landfills, and that's something that we have no control over and that is a concern to us. I really believe that because of the canister sampling that a couple of the neighbors had done by tceq, there is evidence that there are constituents, as trek mentioned earlier that is correct are very consistent with the types of chemicals that are in the industrial waste unit. And for that reason I too would urge that we not gloss over that portion of the problem because I think that is something that is going to be very significant regardless of what studies or what future things may be done. That problem is always going to be there. And I would encourage you to keep that in mind. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Best is coming forward. [inaudible].
>> hi, I'm joyce thornson from walnut heights neighborhood. I just wanted to confirm trek's statement about open records requests. I made an open records request for methane exceedences before tceq. It is now before the attorney general. I have no idea when I can get that information. If I can get it because of the enforcement actions which have not been settled even though we're talking about $140,000, we don't really know if anybody is ever going to see that money. Maybe they will and maybe they won't. Also, I want to -- behind this whole thing, I believe, is both landfills' plans to expand. I mean, we can talk as long as we want to about, you know, closing up when you are done, but four of you heard at the summit that both plants have plans to expand. Waste management has an option to buy a 100-acre tract. That's another huge pile of trash we're talking about. And I think that, quote, good faith efforts may not be enough when you are speaking of two regional landfills in a growing suburban area, and I'm begging the Commissioners to support the surrounding community in opposing expansions of these landfills when that comes up. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Eckland, I'm wondering, what is the importance of step 2 now?
>> [indiscernible] was to develop a monitoring study for odors so that's what I did. [inaudible] whether or not you want to implement that step is not something I addressed in the reports and it's -- you know, what I can tell you is that study would indicate whether or not the landfills are in compliance with the state regulations for odors.
>> okay.
>> I think you've heard from some of the neighbors there are some concerns about benzene and vocs and industrial waste, and in terms of odors, those aren't significant, in my opinion. And to address those would be a health study, that would be an entirely different kind of study and you would be looking at much larger expenses, I would think. My read of what the tceq did is that, yes, they detected a few of those kinds of compounds, but you always detect those compounds in ambient air whether it's in rural or urban areas, and I didn't see anything in their limited data to indicate that there's any red flags that would suggest additional work to look at health effects.
>> are you saying the levels of benzene is to the point where it's not a health [indiscernible]?
>> it's probably lower than what you would measure outside -- you know, if we walked outside here. They were very low. Again, they only took a handful of samples as kind of a screening study, but as I recall they were all in the sub one part per billion range which is what you would expect to see in Austin. You would get higher numbers if you got closer to the highway.
>> if our goals were to rid myself of bad odors at my landfill, how would I determine what to do?
>> if you are going to stay in operation, you are going to continue to produce gases. What the landfills are trying to do is extract those gases at a high efficiency. They are taking the gas over and burning it either to generate electricity or just to flare off the gases. In general they are doing what landfills across the country do to try to limit their odors and operate efficiently. But phase 3 is an engineering study that would be done by a co-worker of mine who is an expert on landfill gas systems. That's not my area of expertise. But also may be go in and looking to see if the well spacing, the number of wells, if the design is sufficient to control odors, and then if the operations are consistently adequate to limit odors.
>> is there monitoring at the landfills now?
>> no. They do some record keeping -- I take that back. They do limited monitoring on a quarterly basis to see if they have adequate coverage, but they don't do any monitoring for hydrogen sulfide like we were talking on the second phase. I think it's everybody's expectation that the landfills are likely to pass and that monitoring would demonstrate that they are in compliance with the state regs. You know, I'm sure they are the majority of the time. Whether they are 100% of the time or not is to be determined. From the neighbors' standpoint, the advantage of monitoring if there is one is it keeps the pressure on the landfills to operate to the best of their ability at least for the duration of the monitoring.
>> okay. Let's get mr. Mcaffee and we'll get back to you.
>> well, I'm -- as I read through this, I was not absolutely sure when we were going through the disclosure period when we were hiring this study, but I wonder -- I know you said you were -- one of the answers said you were a defendant in a case where -- I mean you were rather a witness in the case where the defendant -- and that the [indiscernible] was on the other side.
>> correct.
>> and who was the -- I'm wondering who that was that you were -- I mean a witness for.
>> slaughterhouse industry outside the state of Texas.
>> okay. In reading through the report, I just was struck by how it really -- so much of the language sounded like it was written almost by the landfills. I did not get a feeling of it being unbiased at all when I read through this report. And that's basically all i've got to say at this point.
>> ms. English.
>> judge, I will reiterate what I said Friday that basically if you have a leaky faucet and you work on it for three days and after three days it still drips, you still have a leaky faucet. As far as I'm concerned, that's what's going on right now. For example, on the flare, there is no comments as whether -- if the flare was operating properly or if it could be a source of odors and why is it that the energy -- what did you call that system of conversion?
>> co-generation.
>> the co-generator? The co-skwr epb facility. Is the amount of gas being extracted is less than what the co-gen can handle, why is there a statement in the report that says they are burning off the excess in the flare? If the system can handle more and they are now burning at the full capacity, why are we burning excessive -- excess in the flare. Somehow that left a big gap in my mind. And then you are talking about removal and destruction of the methane. Does a flare remove and destroy or does it just remove and how does it remove and how does it destroy?
>> for the hydrogen sulfide in the flare, it gets oxidized so the h2s gets converted.
>> so that's like a dioxin?
>> no, it's sulfur dioxide, which is a less odorous compound. It's the same compound people typically worry about at coal-fired utility plants.
>> okay. And so -- also, have we taken into consideration that the waste management site is flaring industrial gases? They are extracting gases from the industrial waste and burning them. So is this being also taken into consideration? I don't think you want to hear any more. Thank you. I just -- I have a lot of questions like that and somehow I feel we're not address -- were not addressed in the report. And to me, if they were found up to be in compliance, what are you going to do with it? What are you going to do with this data if they were found in compliance? I mean does that mean that tceq is not doing their job?
>> I think what our goal was to get a good fix on the problem. Then try to figure out how to address it or them, whatever they were. We knew there were odors, but we weren't sure what the odors were [indiscernible]. At some point we were trying to get more certainty about source of odors, what the odors in fact are, and then what the remedy is. And what we're talking about now is steps 2 and 3 or phases 2 and 3, seems to me you can put them together. And I guess if I owned a landfill and had an idea of what the problem was, I guess I would want to put my money on fixing it. It makes sense to me to try to combine 2 or 3. Now, mr. Eckland, we were told early this year that the planned [indiscernible] is sort of during the cold, camp months of : part of the reason I felt to agendize this in December and try to take whatever action is prepare for January, February, March. I guess those would be the cold, damp months here in Travis County. And so what we'll have on the agenda next week is an opportunity for us to take action. We can do nothing, we can follow mr. Eckland's recommendation, we can come up with other actions, maybe a hybrid of 2 and 3, bringing those together. We ought to give some thought, I guess, to tceq's role in this if there is one. But my goal was for us in December to take action on phases 2 or 3 or if there is another one, whatever it is, and in December in preparation for taking action January, February, March of next year to give us a better feel for whether or not we can fix this by the time the spring weather comes around when we think the odor problem heel I is a -- really is a whole lot less than it is during the cold, damp months. I guess we're on track to get that done. You know, I guess we've all been cooperating at this point. Next week is important. And I mean few still have time to fix the problems out there, it will take some money.
>> judge, could I ask that we contact -- I mean somebody from the clerk contact tceq? I would love to have a tceq person here so that we can ask some very direct questions. I mean my gosh, we dance around that. I mean they are the word on this. You know, we did have -- we were fortunate to have them at the little regional meeting that we had last week, but I wasn't overly pleased and impressed with what we got from tceq at that meeting. But someone needs to come up here and help us address some of these issues. You know, I share your frustration and I also share the frustration of the industry. I mean, steve makes a good point. I mean, until you stop taking your garbage out on Tuesdays and Fridays, and until you watch what you put in your garbage, I mean all you've got to do is walk down the alley way of sixth street or whatever, you will pass out before you get down the alleyway if you are in the back walking -- I mean just take a quick sniff test of the dumpsters. And then wonder why you have smells coming out of something that's got hundreds of thousands of pounds of garbage. But we have got to find out -- I mean, I would like to know from tceq, and hopefully one of those people over there are watching this meeting, which is the reason i'll rant and rave a little bit. I mean, if they are willing to come to me and say, Commissioner Daugherty, you know what, we think that that neighborhood has got to live with 14 days of stuff that you just can't tolerate, I mean I want somebody to give me a number. I don't think that you can stop -- I don't think you can get to zero. I do think there's a point somewhere here where people have just become somewhat anesthetized of complaining, and I don't blame them. You know, I'm one of those people that have had a cause in this community for about 10 years, and i've never given up on it and I don't think you all are going to give up out and we need to listen to you. But I need to also find a way in order for us to take on the garbage issue that we have in this community, it is very loud and clear to me that we are not going to be able to force the landfills to close. I think that the -- we will have a larger battle than what we're dealing with right now to stop expansions. Now, i've got some sneaking suspicions that there are a number of reasons why that is probably the case. I asked a pretty pointed question at the regional meeting about how many people out of the industry are now involved with tceq. And there was lots of movement from the left to the right side of their bottoms on the chair and I thought that was interesting. But somebody has got to find a way to come forth and say, you know what, we have an issue here, tceq. You all need to help us find a way to deal with it. I'm surprised at all of these meetings, i've been here a little over a year now, maybe we've had a tceq person here, but I don't think that we've had one. But I mean it needs to come from my office, judge, where I make the phone call and say we would like to have somebody here because I'm sure this will be a fairly spirited conversation next week and it needs to be. But to not have them here is ridiculous.
>> I think that's exactly the point that I was trying to make at the very beginning. After everything we went through in 2001 and 2002, the end result is there was not anything put into the final orders related to monitoring. You kind of get to the question of jeez, if they don't think monitoring is warranted, well then what is the point of them spending the $240,000 that perhaps we ought to have best have those dollars redirected for what the [indiscernible] is. Those of us who live in the city of Austin only get our garbage picked up one day a week. We don't get Tuesday, Friday, we just get one day.
>> you don't have as much garbage.
>> we get to recycle.
>> i'll make that phone call, judge.
>> actually there was a statement on cnn last night about how much waste we've increased.
>> we have an item on today's agenda --
>> let's get with tceq regarding the person --.
>> my request would be for all of you guys to make the request. I think, bart, you might have a -- who might be the best person. It's a huge agency.
>> last Wednesday --
>> you have three choices. There's the solid waste people, there's the local office with patty ray and barry and there's the monitoring people which are more my counterparts which are folks bike david bremmer.
>> a decision made by the executive director as a pointed person for the work group. But my inclination she might bring technical supporting folks from the --
>> last week, john, and let me finish saying what I need to .last week we attended a meeting and of course we had many tceq people before the Commissioners. There were several people there are -- not captech, but tceq that seemed to be pretty knowledgeable about some of the stuff. Are some of the persons rear referring to today affiliated with that participation in the captech before tceq?
>> [indiscernible] she was in the audience, right.
>> well, if we can lean in that direction because it seemed to be some pretty knowledgeable people that had some clout, some disposition of knowing what's going on and it may be in the best interest of what we're trying to get to here. Let me say this again, I'm going to reiterate it over and over again, what I'm looking for and I think what the community is looking for is to shut down and closing of those 290 east landfills. Now, that is my goal, to relocate them to a situation where there is benefit to the community, but [indiscernible] intrusive on the community and some of the concerns we're doing dealing with today. That means buffers, that means about a thousand acres of property they will have to acquire for a reasonable solution to the solid waste problem in Travis County. Travis County shouldn't be the host of all the trash of other counties coming here. We shouldn't be the host. Again, I think we need to look for a regional solution and I'm going to continue to [indiscernible] with that. But of course that is my objective. Thank you.
>> we'll have this back on next week at 9:30 Tuesday morning.
>> before you leave, john, so you think that I need to ask for patty?
>> the only reason I ask for assistance is it would just happen quicker and easier. I will give your office that contact.
>> [indiscernible].
>> sure, no problem. She's a great lady. I'm sure she will be done here.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> we'll have it back on Tuesday at 9:30. We didn't expect many pats on the back.
>> I think -- no. [laughter]
>> we appreciate your work, though.
>> thank you.
>> thank you and happy thanksgiving.
>> thank you, trek. Same to you.
>> next week it will be posted for action.
>> have a safe one.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:52 PM